Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Carrie dickman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carrie dickman Votes for deletion/Carrie dickman was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

seems bogus. Googles find nothing for the name, pen name, or book. Maximus Rex 01:57, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• What other books did this woman write? "Ode to a School Board Member"? "The Woman Who Had Few Relevant Yahoo! Hits"? "The Made-Up Fabrication from the Black Lagoon"? Delete. Mike H 01:58, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Seems like a fascinating woman in history to me. Goes to show that just because she's a WOMAN trying to earn her way in a MAN'S world, it's considered absurd. And if you can't find it on yahoo, well, it has to start somewhere. Carrie Dickman was my great great great great grandmother, and she deserves a little recognition.

• • Why didn't she capitalize her last name? RickK 04:28, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

• It's absurd because it looks like you made her up. Mike H 02:19, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Sounds like absolute bollocks to me. Delete. Exploding Boy 02:20, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense unless the author can offer verifiable references. - Lucky 6.9 02:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I'm not voting, but in response to the "man's world" jibe above: It may not be obvious to you, User:24.177.116.24, but not everyone on the Wikipedia, or even everyone voting here, is a man. The Wikipedia is a community, not a conspiracy, and you would do well to assume the best about others' intentions. You should know after reading a few of the entries on VfD that vanity pages are disdained around here. --Ardonik 03:50, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, although I'd be happy to see it recreated with verifiable references at some point in the future. —Stormie 04:02, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Look, I'm very sorry to be rude, if I am, but it's just not true. 1. 1766 is not the birth date of the first woman to use a male name (in 1801 or 2). Women using male names had gone on for a long, long, long, long time. Men also used women's names to publish. In fact, Sarah Fielding outsold her brother, Henry Fielding, by a long shot in the 1740's. 2. Secondly, women did find work. Not all women were instantly married and housewives. "Manuta maker" and "seamstress" was common, but women ran shops. Women worked as servants. If this particular woman could not find work, it was not because she was a woman. 3. Surviving triplets would be rare in the era (very). Late-life triplet birth might well lead to the mother's death, but triplets are very hard to keep viable today. In sum, it just doesn't add up. This article can be disproven. Unlike Constantia Jones, where, as it turns out, the person never showed up on any of the Newgate records, we can easily prove or disprove this book. If we need to go to the Short Title Catalog for the book title, we can. The ESTC is online and free. The author may have had the best of intentions, may have gotten this as family lore, but it's just not true. Geogre 04:49, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Correction: Alas, the ESTC is now for pay. If anyone's going to a big U. or the British Lib., though, there is access. Can't blame them for charging. Geogre 14:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Also, in fairness, a primary reference for Constantia Jones has turned up. Geogre 19:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless your great great great great grandfather did something encyclopedic, we don't want an article on him either. Ambivalenthysteria 07:08, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• google is not the arbiter of all knowledge, especially pre-internet history. However this smells bogus, I'd like to see some independent evidence backing statements such as "Carrie Dickman was the first woman in history to use a male pen name in order to become an author" before wanting to keep this. Ianb 15:39, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • Just FWIW, both Susan Spenser (recommended) and Dale Spender (not) have books listing some hundred or so female authors prior to 1800 who wrote either under their own names (Mary Manley, Anne Barbauld, Maria Edgeworth, Charlotte Lennox, Sarah Fielding, "Fanny" Burney of course, Jane Austen of course, and dozens of others) or under male names (many of the above at times, but incl. Aphra Behn). The Bronte view of English fiction just doesn't wash out for this period. It's also worth noting that women assumed male names if they were going to write "men's" literature (subject of much argument, the gendered genre), but some genres were supposedly exclusively feminine, and thus male authors assumed women's names (one claimant for "first novel," Pamela, was supposed to be by a woman). This particular claim is easily disputed, seems to me. Geogre 16:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, unless substantial verification can be provided before the end of the VFD period. DJ Clayworth 17:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I searched for "Carrie Dickman" and "Oliver Deutchen" in three online databases, Chadwyck Literature Online, Gale Literature Resource Center, and MLA Bibliography. No hits. This is surprising, in that Dickman apparently has the sort of biography that academics drool over. I also searched for them in WorldCat, which is the combined catalog of thousands of worldwide libraries, and found no books by an author of either name. Either Dickman is so obscure that no one has written about her in a decade or so and her books do not appear in any library in the English speaking world, or this is fabricated. If it’s true, go to the nearest university and I’m sure you’ll find a prof willing to write about her. But without any sort of evidence, I vote delete. Gamaliel 19:26, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: We've been getting a few bogus articles about bogus people in the last few days, the latest being from that moron that is posting spaced-out fiction based on "Titanic." I'd lay you odds this has sprung from the same keyboard. The only thing worse than a practical joke is having a liar deny any association with it. If I sound a bit harsh, good. OK, great-great-great grandchild. What do you say? Do you have anything to verify this article of yours? If not, don't get your panties in a bunch since you got caught in a lie, got it? And, I'm certain that any further attempts at posting bogus articles will be blown out of the water on sight. I'm one of the most patient and friendly people you're likely to meet, but I am damned sick of being nice about this kind of garbage. - Lucky 6.9 06:30, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete unless verifiable evidence is provided. Average Earthman 11:10, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete This article reads like a contrivance, a sham, a tissue of lies, a mockery of this dear encyclopedia we all hold so dear. No evidence has been brought forward to bolster this friperry, so it should be removed straight away. The use of 'neighbor' is just one of the give-aways. This is not how the English describe the English, we spell it 'neighbour'.
• Delete probable fiction. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.